Pamela Wallin’s Expenses Have Been Referred To The RCMP, Oooooooh

From CBC:

The RCMP referral and other recommendations are contained in the committee’s report that says Wallin had an “unusual pattern” of stopping in Toronto, where she owns a condo, on her way from Ottawa to Saskatchewan, the province she was appointed to represent in 2009. Between January 2009 and Sept. 30, 2012, Wallin made 95 trips between the nation’s capital and Saskatchewan and 75 of them involved stops of one or more nights in Toronto, the auditors found. The audit report contains a chart that outlines all of Wallin’s expense claims — the amounts, the dates, the travel routes, and details of her trips, including whom she met with and other activities. Expense claims were deemed appropriate if Wallin stayed over in Toronto in order to avoid a late arrival in Saskatchewan or if there was Senate business in Toronto. But the review found many instances where Wallin had said on her expense forms that she was on Senate business but in fact was not.

This whole Harper machine seems more and more Mulroneyesque every day.

Author: Stephen Whitworth

Prairie Dog editor Stephen Whitworth was carried to Regina in a swarm of bees. He's been with Prairie Dog since May 1999 and will die at his keyboard before admitting his career a terrible, terrible mistake.

2 thoughts on “Pamela Wallin’s Expenses Have Been Referred To The RCMP, Oooooooh”

  1. No better way to end your journalism career in disgrace like being appointed to the senate by Stephen J. Harper.

  2. Being appointed by Harper might have been fine if she had done her job responsibly. Case in point: Kevin Page’s stint as the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Instead, she’s used her privilege and position to waste public money on diversionary flights to other cities for her personal/private business interests.

    It makes me wonder, when she was a journalist, did she ask tough questions because she believed in bringing truth to power, and merely forgot that belief somewhere along the way? Or was it out of the thrill of watching someone so powerful squirm? Perhaps both, to some extent? If the former, then she should know better than anyone why calling this scrutiny and criticism “unfair” is a load of nonsense. If the latter, well, then the shoe is on the other foot now, isn’t it?

    Her case is as good as any at reminding us all that no one is incorruptible, something both practitioners and readers of journalism must always keep in mind.

Comments are closed.